http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...korea_nuclear_3



If North Korea tests the bomb, what should the United States response be?

What can it be, except to protest?

I suppose the USA could attempt to have the UN issue a formal statement against North Korea. Again, it's all just paper and words.

I don't have any idea how one can deal with rogue nations, except to make it clear that any hostile use of nuclear weapons will result in massive retaliation (from as many nations as possible, I would hope.) Certainly this is not a "good" answer.

Ohhh so they are planning a "light show" for Mr Bush's arrival.

What do you think China's response should be?

Kim Jong Il and his family should be over thrown. He is a danger to the world. China should assasinate him. If they're dumb (which they arent) they will support him in some sort of show of Communist solidarity.

Kim Jong should know better than to rattle his sabers because we'll take our big stick and knock it out of his hands.

The US should go to the UN, tell them to be relavent, and to threaten sanctions against North Korea.

...at which point we will continue to implement the policy of 1994 which has kept North East Asia safe from nuclear weapons...oh, wait....it didn't work for even a decade.

I was kind of joking before. I really think the U.S. should publicly inform that it will turn a blind eye to the development of nuclear weapons in China, South Korea, and Japan, while beginning to pull troops out of Korea. If Kim Jong Il wants to play, we'll let him; but we should not handicap his neighbors.

Clearly this is a terrible option, but its better that the other three possibilities, which are 1) trying trade embargos against a government that doesn't care about its people 2) invading the DPRK or 3) stationing American missiles in SK and containing KJI by putting Americans in harms way.

The bottom line is that KJI has put the world in a TERRIBLE situation with no good answer.

Woah! Whoah! Whoah!..... ......."China and Japan"? I thought Japan couldn't develop weapons like that because of their surrender at the end of WW2 and are we sure we want red CHINA to further develop WMD while we turn a blind eye?

Yes. That is exactly the best option of the U.S. Don't forget, China maybe red, but they are not our enemy. I agree with the CATO institute that there are 4 options: http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb73.pdf

1) Preemptive War
2) Economic Sanctions
3) Continued bribery of N.K.
4) Create nuclear balance

They all stink, but that's really all we can do.

(CATO doesn’t explicitly list China though.)

That's scary. Gosh, what is this world coming too?

I will tell you. For years now developed nations of the world have been too scared by international Political Correctness to act in the interest of the world. The attitude is especially rampant in the more liberal side of governments around the world. There is a growing attitude that there is "no right or wrong because it's all morally relative."

This is a bunch of bull. Clearly it is wrong of KJI to develop nuclear weapons. He has begun down a path that will most likely lead to more hate and war.

The developed world should have handled this long ago. (See: 1994 for bribery of Kim Jong Il: the world gave NK oil as long as they didn’t produce nukes.)

What should have happened is the removal of a NK administration that is rabid for nukes and COMPLETELY disregards its people. North Koreans suffer greatly at the hand of Kim Jong Il, and yet there are people around the world who would tell you removing him from office and freeing the North Korea citizens is morally wrong. When has it been wrong to help your fellow man who can't help himself?

My point is that these things are happening in the world because the world to too scared to act. The world is coming to a state where we do nothing to help ourselves and allow evil men like KJI to do whatever they want. It is time to stand up and do what it right. It may be too late for us to act in North Korea, but Kim Jong Il is not the last evil the world will encounter. We must not be afraid. We must not excuse wrong doings with moral relativism. We must recognize right as right and wrong as wrong.

I don't believe this adminstration would do anything. The adminstration should have taken care of this before going to Iraq. But North Korea situtation is a lot more serious and dangerous. That is one reason Bush adminstration is in Iraq.

I agree, BUT, if we paid them off in 1994, wasn't Clinton in office then? It would seem to me that he allowed our country to be extorted.

Edited to add: Now it's too little too late...

I agree with you. Place the blame where it belongs. Clinton was to blame there and it should have been handled differently.

I think many of the past administrations are to blame for the state we find our country in now.
Reagan: Iran-Contra=Saddam's regime
Clinton: North Korea
Bush Sr: Not taking out Saddam when he had the chance in 1991, with a unified coolition.

It's hard to put blame soley on one individual.



EDITED TO ADD: This is IRONIC!!! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ium_allegations

This article was JUST posted on Yahoo news!!!

I agree with you 100% again. My problems is that Clinton was harassed for 8 years. Now Bush has been questioned for about 2 years and they call us un-american just because we questioned his decisions.

I will always try to be honest when looking at different situtations. All parties make mistakes,but lets handle each one the same way.

AGREE!

Oh, I agree Popeye47. It's the old, "do as I say not as I do", standard.

This is not a Bush/Clinton thing.

Don't forget Clinton had an opportunity to take out Osama in 1998.

Don't forget the Bush Sr. made a speech promising to help Iraqi citizen if they revolted. They did. Bush didn't. Hundreds of Iraqis were tortured and killed by Sadam.

Don't forget Clinton refused to send troops to Rwanda circa 1996 to stop genocide during which people were being killed at twice the pace of the Jews during the Holocaust. A recent Brookings Institute study estimated that 1500 troops could have prevented these 6 million deaths.

I know these examples because I am American. In the Rwandan example I know that the rest of the world also did nothing.

This isolationism is a BIG problem. Nations are scared of action. The people of the world don't realize that nations must act to prevent things like this from happening. Instead what we see are things like the American 'human shields' that entered Baghdad before the bombing to protect it. Don't they realize that they were protecting a leadership that ruled through systematic torture and intimidation.

It is too late to take any action in North Korea. We are instead left in a position where our best option is to allow South Korea and Japan to develop nuclear weapons. We (the world) would not be in this position if our leaders would act for the long term benefit of the world

I agree campbejm. Our leaders have let us and the world down. I'm not arguing that.

There is no solution, diplomatic or otherwise in preventing a war with NK. Diplomacy, by telling them to disarm, they will disarm...for a minute. Then once no one is paying attention, back to work on building on weapons they go. Sanctions will be the same thing, except more people will die. Going to war would possibly cause a nuclear disaster.

It's a lose-lose situation. Best thing for the entire world is to assassinate Kim Jong and insert a new government.

We have had leaders of different countries assisinated before and it has not worked.

We had the leader of South Vietnam assisinated back in the 1960s and replaced him with our puppet. A lot of good that did.

I do not think China will show or extend any sign of solidarity to North Korea over this. In fact I think China will be very unhappy and will in fact condone it with the US. I also think that they key to this "problem" is in fact China. Besdies North Korea is not really communist..is it?

I also think we should push them to test...to prove it. No one knows if it is even true or not and they currently say it is possible that they have one of two so why not let them waste one?

I wonder how much faith the South Koreans have now in their "Sunshine Policy" ?

And where will North Korea perform this test? In one of their large, abandoned desert areas? On a Pacific atoll where they have been able to displace the natives and isolate the area from all shipping? Over Japan?

I recall several months ago, GWB ordered several planes to a US military base a few miles South of Korea. At the time, it seemed we were preparing for a war with Korea; but Iraq became the "larger threat." I recall thinking at the time that GWB was setting us up for another Pearl Harbor. North Korea would merely have to successfully launch a single missile with a nuclear warhead in the proximity of that Air Force base to wipe out both the base, and all the airplanes on it. I personally would rather see an aircraft carrier within striking distance of North Korea, and maybe capable of moving out of the way of a pre-emptive strike.

If you wanted to test a nuclear weapon, and you only had one or two; would you waste them? When the U.S. was in that position, we used our weapons to lay waste to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have lived since under the threat of another nation using nuclear weapons, lived with radioactive fallout, and lived with the "promise from nuclear scientists that they will develop a way to safely store high level radioactive waste." (And every high school Chemistry student is told the legend of the "Philosopher's Stone" that will turn lead into gold. Unicorn horns are also known to neutralize any poison.)

I think we should push NK to test too because i think they are bluffing. Then, we can call their bluff, and make them look like fools.

Aside from your apparent misconceptions about N. Korea, what leads you to believe they are bluffing? The technology is not difficult to master; India and Pakistan accomplished it recently. North Korea invests a tremendous amount of it's economy in military production as well. Don't you think that the game is a little high stakes to be making such claims merely as an expression of western bravado?

How should I know...maybe they could consult with the many other countries that have tested against international wishes or the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty...France, India, Pakistan, China.



What economy exactly would that be? They are starving to death and with winter approaching I am sure they are finding it difficult to even clothe and feed that army let alone arm them.

What country has become a nuclear power without testing? There is only one I can think of...Israel.

edited to add...

I forgot I had a question for Ultimatejoe...did you feel that Iraq was nuclear capable too? I mean if it is that easy to become a nuclear power and all.

I'm sure Kim Jong keeps his soldiers loyal by clothing them. To hell with the civilians in his eyes. That's the main reason NK has a huge army. It's the only way people can get food and a decent set of clothes



Good point. If it is so easy to become a nuclear power, then obviously Iraq can. Saddam probably didn't jsut have centerfuige parts hidden. There may well be more that we don't (and probably won't ever) know about.

Also, France gave Iraq a nuclear plant (smooth move). If the Israelis hadn't bombed that, who knows where we would be now.

And it is also rumored that North Korea would not be as far a long as she is with her nuclear program if it was not for our very own Mr. Rumsfeld.
DONALD RUMSFELD'S NORTH KOREA CONNECTION

Oh and the Swiss (who are neutral remember) and the Swedish are then implicated too aren't they being that ABB is a Swiss-Swedish owned business. Also is interesting to note that ABB, which is actually based in Zurich, Switzerland, also had an enron-esque scandal.

Bucket:

Thanks for the info on the connection with Donald Rumsfield and North Korea. That is the first time I had seen that. Imagine,Mr. Rumsfield(high and mighty) with skeletons in his closet. That just destorys my confidence in this adminstration that was supposed to restore honesty and intergity.

I don't understand what the skeleton is. It was very public common knowledge that we promised N Korea two light-water nuclear reactors if they stopped developing nuclear weapons and shut their gas-graphite nuke plants, which made far more plutonium. That deal was made in 1994, and had the backing of the administration at the time. The deal came unhindged later when Kim Jong Il admitted to continuing his nuclear weapons program. The fact that Rumsfield didn't disagree with it, or the fact that some Swiss company was involved shouldn't raise an eyebrow.The parts had to come from somewhere, and why would Rumsfield object to the agreement? He's not allowed to ever agree with the Democratic party?

Light water reactors cannot produce nuclear material. Light Water Reactors is what Rumsfeld sold them.

This is not at all true...it is just not as easily done..to quote an article:
"The head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington, a vocal critic of the Agreed Framework, has warned that even when the new reactors are completed they may not be tamper-proof.
These reactors are like all reactors, they have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we're trying to prevent it acquiring," Henry Sokolski has said."
source





Well if it is not that big of a deal then why won't Rummy own up to it? He denies evening knowing ABB had any involvement in the deal..and yet he was a member of the board? Perhaps it is because this approach to North Korea has been not very popular with conservatives?

When has he denied anything? Most conservatives were against the light water reactors. Rummy apparently wasn't. So what? The topic of this thread isn't 'is Rummy a good guy'. You made the assertion that he had some closet deal to conspire to give the N Koreans nukes, which isn't the case. He didn't object to the light water reactors, which were part of a deal made publicly with the administration at the time.

Your right pigpen, he has not publicly denied it as far as I know...which is a bit odd for Rummy don't you think? He is not one for silence even when it is needed. Yet in the article I provided... and I know it is only a press release but this story is old news and the copy of the actual article I read mos ago is no longer available online..yet it states in this press release:
When confronted with Rumsfeld's role as ABB board director, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that "there was no vote on this" and that her boss "does not recall it being brought before the board at anytime."



What do you mean so what? He is part of the current administration..and a fairly integral part of it too and one that happens to have quite a pivotal role re: Foreign Policy and a man who has to be one of the most vocal condemnors for the current North Korean regime and he does like to remind us of the North Korean nuclear threat. I think this little piece of info is relevant. We make judgement calls on how our Senators vote on issues and who they receive lobbying from...how is this different?

The topic of this thread isn't 'is Rummy a good guy'. You made the assertion that he had some closet deal to conspire to give the N Koreans nukes, which isn't the case. He didn't object to the light water reactors, which were part of a deal made publicly with the administration at the time.

No the topic is about North Korea and America's policy towards it...someone brought up France and Iraq..which is far more of a hijack then my own comments because mine at least still involve the main characters...yet you felt no need to straighten their stray.
I have no idea why our current admins past dealings with the country in question would be considered off topic?

The problem with pursuing an aggressive stance on North Korea, is the suttle fact that North Korea is that North Korea currently has 11,000 artillery weapons along the South Korean border that could inflict millions of millions of casualties in the South Korean capital of Seoul, which is within artillery range of the North. (Source)

North Korea has made their position very clear. If the United States were to enforce any resoloution on their country, war will be declared, resulting in a massive economic, geo-political loss on behalf of the United States.

Thus, I am inclined to agree with the Bush administration with their stance on North Korea.

To seek better relations with North Korea would best serve the best interests of the United States at the present time.

Yes but they would know that if they did that, then we would send in everything we had to bomb the stink outta them. So then that very thought is enough to prevent Kim Jong from doing something stupid

Almost missed your response until someone posted and made the thread current.

The bottom line is, our pact with N Korea (to give them the nuclear reactors) was current also under the Bush administration. Bush didn't make the deal, but was bound by it, and enforced it. We didn't give them the reactors because they abandoned their obligations under that contract. I really don't see the nefarious purpose here, or how that stand is "easiy on N Korea". Was the deal itself wrong?

I'm not sure it was, because the N Koreans already had gas-graphite nuke plants, which made far more plutonium. They agreed to shut those down in return for our light-water reactors. However, since they did not abandon their nuke program (also part of the deal) we withdrew from the contract.

Edited to add: I DON'T think Rumsfield is a good guy. I am certain his silence on the issue had something to do with personal benefit. I'm not sure that makes him different than any politician, though...and I don't think the decision (about the reactors), overall, was necessarily a bad one. Aside from the monetary aspects, we weren't giving them anything (to make bombs) they didn't already have, we were actually limiting the amount of plutonium they could produce and offering a safer alternative for everyone.

Ahh, but we would we be so anxious to do that if there was a nuclear retaliatory capability? Don't you think Japan would lobby us heavily not to get involved? I could see the people in Seattle or LA not being particularly enthused, either.

It is their conventional weapons which make their nuclear program such a concern, precisely because it would limit our ability to respond to a conventional attack on S. Korea.

There would be no way we couldn't get involved. South Korea, if it was attacked, would ask for assitance, which we would have to provide. WE'd just have pray that we hit his nuke facilites

Why, what would Kimmy have to lose? The U.S. would not murder him. That would cause massive dessent in the United States and abroad.

He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

The U.S. would have to actually move carriers across the pacific to engage n combat, which can easily be detected by the North Koreans. The poor Seoulites would not have a chance

Yes. Just like the though of U.S. aggression as evidenced in Iraq has kept Kim Jong Il from pursuing illegal weapons...oh...wait. Ok, well, then at least the presence of the U.S. has kept him from starving the North Korean people to build his military...oh...wait...wrong again. Well then at least we pushed him down the right path by using trade embargos...not right again.

Quite frankly nothing we have done with NK has worked. We should let Japan and SK develop their own nukes and then we should develop a laser based missile shield to protect ourselves. We should also assassinate KJI and family.

SK falls under our protective umbrella, so an attack on them could lead to Bush using the launch codes.

However, Seoul is ridiculously close to the DMZ, so it's toast in the first five minutes anyway. Unfortunately, a working missle defense system doesn't work yet.

And I agree with the assassination statement, although not sure how we'd pull it off, since we haven't found Saddam or bin Laden yet and they were our 2002 and 2003 targets.

I suppose. But, we actually had nukes pointing at them (from S Korea) for decades and dismantled them in 1991. It's interesting that Kim thinks our stand is comparatively 'aggressive' today.
He is quite schizophrenic. He is also reputed to be a movie buff. He even kidnapped a South Korean actress, and kept her a captive for almost a decade...and he loves James Bond and Gone with the Wind. Perhaps there's hope in Hollywood. We could negotiate some sort of Hollywood deal, and promote world peace. Maybe he'd be interested in trading nuke capability for an entertainer or two.

Mrs. P,

"We could negotiate some sort of Hollywood deal, and promote world peace." sounded promising, but the next sentence sounded like threatening someone to slavery. Perhaps someone could offer him a movie contract, with appropriate training in English and acting, a guarantee of a starring role in a fixed number of films, (or the villain role in a James Bond movie) and a guarantee that the films would be translated into Korean and released in N. Korea. If he would agree to it, it would so obviously be necessary to remove him physically from N. Korea in order to fulfill the contract...

It might be an interesting alternative to world peace if he would accept it.

I was kidding about the entertainer, Curmudgeon (that's why I used the shifty eyes, but I guess it didn't come over that way).

I'm actually only HALF kidding about the hope in Hollywood, though. Your ideas have merit, and it's certainly a new approach.

But would we, really? I mean, what would happen if we didn't? No more Hyundais or Kias? Not that I'm arguing that we shouldn't, mind you. I'm just trying to show that the question isn't as defacto post-nuke as it was before. NK would be playing the same game. Attack SK would provoke a US response. NK could threaten to use nukes if we intervene. SK would be pressuring us for assistance, yes, but you can be sure Japan would be trying to keep things from escalating. You see, having the nukes raises the stakes, and makes many things possible that weren't possible before. It's like the difference between playing low stakes poker and no limit Texas Hold 'em. The game gets different when there's no limit--people don't necessarily behave rationally, and things you'd call in other games you're not so sure about now.

And I almost missed yours. I just feel that the issue that Rumsfeld was on this board to be relevant because of his hardline stance on NK...yet these actions and involvement with ABB and NK show an opposite approach. I also find it interesting because Swiss company officials admitted that Rumsfeld was more than welcomed on the board because of his Washington connections and lobbying power. It was this knowledge of Rumsfled and his dealing with this company that solidified my feelings for this man because ABB was also involved in an Enron like scandal when I lived in CH and he was in fact a board member at the time and one of the big issues with the scandal was the giving of outrageous "bonuses" to board members.

I had always felt that this deal with NK was not popular amongst many of the more conservative leaning people of the US..but maybe I am wrong? I had thought in fact many were very critical of it and this is the biggest concern I can see for Rumsfeld wanting to keep this issue quiet.

As for the rest of the comments in here...I think no one has mentioned China. And I feel she is crucial to getting NK pacified.

What??

How would killing Kim Jong cause dissent?? A dead communist dictator (with an insane personality to boot) would bring cheer to not only Japan & South Korea (because they have to live next to him), but it would be a reason to celebrate here in the states because that's one less nuke rattling nutball and it would be reason to celebrate in NK because people will finally get a decent government

And if Kim Jong shoots at Seoul, NATO will be showing it's fangs right next to us with F-16's parked at his door. Besides, i doubt he'd bomb Seoul just because we have carriers moving towards NK. We've been flying Predator drones over NK space, which would irritate me, and he hasn't shot at Seoul yet (doesn't mean he won't though)

Kind of like how appeased the Iraqi people were at the site of U.S. troops entering the capitol?

I was talking more along the lines of assasination. It would just be seen by the liberal media as "American Imperialism", which is something that they do not need now.



There is a grave difference between flying unmanned drones into North Korean airspace, and marching through the streets of Pyongyang. Kim wouldn't want to lose his lifeline over a couple of drones.

I do not think you familiar with what is happening. In order to prevent American involvement in North Korea, Kim has stationned 11,000 artillery along the border of Seoul, and in the event the United States attacks North Korea, finish Seoul. Essentially blackmail, if you will.

Rally up russia and Japan. Let Japan build up their military and give em full support in taking out North Korea and then provide what military support they need. North Korea is a lot more of a problem than Iraq.

The U.S. South Korea and Japan have to attack first and North Korea has to believe it is not coming. The United States must strike first and knock of the artillery pointed at Seol and any other defense, especially missle sites. SHOCK AND AWW X 10!